Has the Criminal Justice Act 2003 effectively removed the rule against Essay

Has the Criminal Justice Act 2003 effectively removed the rule against the admission of hearsay evidence - Essay Example Discussion The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states, as a general rule, that hearsay inadmissible. Section 114 (1) states that â€Å"in criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral in evidence is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if,† then it goes on to outline four different exceptions.1 One exception is for when any provision, whether in this chapter or in any other statute makes the statement admissible.2 Another exception is when â€Å"any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible.3 The other exception is when the parties agree to the admissibility of the statement.4 The fourth and final exception is when â€Å"the court is satisfied that it is in the best interest of justice for it to be admissible.†5 Further, the Act carves out exceptions for when a witness is unavailable. In this case, hearsay is admissible if the statement that the unavailable witness would give would be deemed admissible as evidence;6 the person who made the statement has been identified to the satisfaction of the court;7 and that the witness is unavailable according to five different criteria.8 The criteria are that the witness must either be dead, unfit, outside the UK, cannot be found, or is in fear.9 More problematic are the categories that state that a judge can use his or her discretion in deciding whether to admit the statement, and when the witness is unavailable. When the witness is unavailable, then the defendant cannot cross-examine the witness. This would be fundamentally unfair to the defendant. A prosecutor should make every effort to bring witnesses into court so that he or she may be cross-examined, and the statutory provisions that are used for determining whether a witness is unavailable seem too broad. One of the provisions states that a witness may be unavailable because of fear. â€Å"Fear†in this case may either be fear for that person’s life or another person’s life, or it may be fear of f inancial loss. It seems that it would be too simple for a witness to use this excuse. Most witnesses have jobs, and these jobs are not always understanding about having to take off of word to testify. Therefore, the witness can state that he or she is unavailable because of fear of financial loss, and then that witness’ statement can be introduced as evidence against the defendant, without the defendant being able to cross-examine. This rule seems to be weighted in favor of the prosecution, because it seems that virtually any witness can be unavailable under this particular section of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Further, if the witness cannot be on the stand because the trial occurs on a workday, and that person could be fired, then it should be the prosecutor’s responsibility to have secured the statement, through a deposition, on a date that was convenient for the witness. This exception does not put the responsibility on the prosecutor to secure the statement, so this is another flaw. Moreover, although the court has guidelines as to when it can accept a statement under these conditions, these guidelines are rather vague. The judge may accept the statement if the statement should be â€Å"admitted in the interests of justice,†